Description Educational briefing on the U.S. agenda in the Middle East, its consequences, and development of a strategy/plan to withdraw. Emphasis will be on constructive, interactive dialogue among panelists and attendees. Moderator Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) PanelistsChris Hedges, Jeremy Scahill, David Swanson, Col. Ann Wright; plus Iraq War veteran Josh Stieber.
In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.
It takes a considerable amount of time to amass an offensive army logistically to the other side of the planet, as troops and military equipment had been built up along the borders of the former Soviet satellite states the year before the US invasion - Bush signed the order to invade on September 4th. Hmmm, I thought we invaded because of 9/11?
How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.
Finger-Pointing On Anti-Terror Plan
"An official said one such plan was drafted during the early days of the Bush administration, but was only ready for presentation to the president on Sept. 10, a day before the attacks.
Top Bush administration officials approved what McCormack called the "comprehensive strategy to eliminate al Qaeda" exactly one week before the Sept. 11 attacks." - CBS (08/05/01)
War not realistic option before 9/11
"Secretary of State Colin Powell testified Tuesday that the option of an invasion was not seriously considered until a week before the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush's senior foreign policy advisers approved a detailed counterterrorism strategy." - USA Today (03/23/04)
(See also: July 2001 - US plans an attack on OBL and the Taliban for the middle of October; September 10, 2001 - White House's Afghan invasion plan awaits Bush's approval)
India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.
In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
India in anti-Taliban military plan India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban. By Our Correspondent
26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.
Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.
Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan. Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month. [indiareacts.com]
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban. [BBC]
MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]
In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.
How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.
9/11 radio broadcast: "The Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack—an imminent attack—on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." [MemoryHole]
9/11 CBS9 broadcast: "There are contigency plans set to go, and the plans have been set to go for several weeks now on what to do if Osama bin Laden were to plan a very large attack, and they've selected targets in Afghanistan, and you can be sure that if it is Osama bin Laden that the US will probably retaliate, and retaliate massively." WMV video download (172kB)
"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian]
One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, reading this drivel. But one thing is crystal clear here; the powers that be, in their collective, pathological hubris, have obviously decided that this immoral, unwinnable war will continue, creating an even more horrendous costs in blood and money.
Afghanistan was stable - albeit disfunctional - under the Taliban, before the invasion and occupation began.Afghanistan never has been - nor ever will be - any credible threat to the safety and security of the US or the world.
TO THOSE ADULTS IN THE HALLS OF POWER WHO STILL HAVE SOME SHRED OF CAPACITY FOR CRITICAL THINKING LEFT: THE REASONABLE, LOGICAL CHOICE HERE IS TO DECLARE VICTORY, GO HOME, AND NEGOTIATE WITH WHATEVER GOVERNMENT IS LEFT TO SECURE THE PIPELINE ROUTES WITH WHICH TO CONTROL EURASIAN OIL AND HEROIN.
And while you are at it, please explain to the families and friends of the fallen, who love and mourn those soldiers killed or maimed for life, that this war had nothing to do with US or world security, but everything to do with the private profits to be made through control of both the oil and the drug trade.
You owe them at least the honest reasons as to why the US and NATO are "staying the course" in Afghanistan.
Don't forget, the world was reporting that the US was planning an attack on Afghanistan in the fall as early as February 2001. It takes a considerable amount of time to amass an offensive army logistically to the other side of the planet, as troops and military equipment had been built up along the borders Afghanistan in the former Soviet satellite states the year before the US invasion - But Bush signed the order to invade on September 4th. Hmmm, I thought we invaded because of 9/11?
British and other foreign troops deployed in Afghanistan face a "very tough" time ahead and can expect to be engaged in a combat role for three or four more years, Nato's most senior civilian official in the country said today.
Mark Sedwill, a former UK ambassador to Afghanistan, warned of further troop deaths in the region, saying: "We cannot allow judgment of success to be the absence of casualties." He said the "bumper sticker" message for the next British government had to be that "a stable Afghanistan is a safer world".
The somber cover of this updated brochure appeals directly to antiwar groups by showing that 9/11 is the foundation for the unending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now in their ninth year, the wars have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, yet President Obama continues to use 9/11 as the reason for fighting in the region—this despite the disturbing questions about the official account of the tragedy, now confirmed as being based on lies. Many of these questions are grounded in science and can no longer be ignored or dismissed as so-called “conspiracy theories.”
Available from DC 9/11 Truth in bulk. Order a batch of 200 professionally printed brochures for $15 (7.5 cents each, at cost), plus $5 S&H. Contact brochures@dc911truth.org
Description Educational briefing on the U.S. agenda in the Middle East, its consequences, and development of a strategy/plan to withdraw. Emphasis will be on constructive, interactive dialogue among panelists and attendees. Moderator Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) PanelistsChris Hedges, Jeremy Scahill, David Swanson, Col. Ann Wright; plus Iraq War veteran Josh Stieber.
Right on cue, just like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell, here you have the US's "Israel-first" Congress members barking and snarling at the very thought of Iran's president addressing the UN. And why are they barking and snarling, pray tell? Because as surely as the sun rises, Ahmedinejad is going to honestly point out the obvious: that Israel has nuclear weapons, but refuses to join the NNPT or allow inspections of their nuclear facilities, which Iran has done and is continuing to do... US lawmakers denounce Ahmadinejad visit to New York
US lawmakers on Friday denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plans to join a major UN nuclear disarmament summit next week in New York and urged he not be given a visa to attend.
"This is preposterous, and allowing it to happen will make a mockery of the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorist groups," 14 Republican senators wrote to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"There is simply no compelling reason for Ahmadinejad to be allowed to enter the United States," they said. "The US government has the legal authority to deny Ahmadinejad's request and bar his entry -- even if he is transiting only to the United Nations. We ask that you exercise that authority."
Republican Senator John Cornyn led the group of senators, who wrote their letter after Iran's UN mission said Ahmadinejad had applied Wednesday for a US visa to lead Iran's delegation to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference.
The summit, which opens Monday at UN headquarters in New York, comes as the United States and its partners seek to craft a new UN resolution imposing a fresh round of sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program.
Iran denies the charges that its civilian nuclear program hides a covert quest for an atomic arsenal, but has refused to freeze uranium enrichment, which can be a key step towards developing a nuclear weapon.
Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen led a bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House of Representatives in condemning as an "outrage" plans to give Ahmadinejad a visa that could let him "preach hate and violence on American soil."
"Make no mistake: Ahmadinejad?s attendance will make a mockery of a conference meant to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons," they said.
"It will also make a mockery of US efforts to secure global support to stop Iran's nuclear weapons pursuit, and it will turn the conference into yet another forum to attack Israel on a global stage," they wrote.
"The US must not allow this dangerous tyrant to use our freedoms and our obligations as a host country for the UN to force himself upon our country to spread his message of hate and violence," said the lawmakers.
How Wars Are Born: China versus the U.S. Beijing Challenges American Expansionism
by Shamus Cooke/Global Research
“Shen Dingli, a Chinese intellectual, recently argued in favor of creating the first Chinese overseas military bases (the U.S. has 909 military facilities in foreign countries)...”
BEIJING, CHINA - MARCH 22, 2007: U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace (R) and Gen. Liang Guanglie inspect the guard of honor during a welcome ceremony at the Defense Ministry in March 22, 2007 Beijing, China.
Those of us making the “radical” claim that wars are the result of economic/corporate interests pushed abroad, were recently given a nod of approval from a typically unfriendly source, The New York Times.
The corporate controlled New York Times published a revealing article about how U.S. foreign policy really works, and why. The motive behind the sincerity is that China’s foreign policy was being attacked. However, the article soon made it clear that China’s policy is the same as the U.S.’s : dominating regions that are of “economic (corporate) interest” — raw materials, cheap labor, shipping lanes, markets, etc. — through military buildup.
Dangerously, the article discusses how China’s economic expansion —and the military buildup used to protect it — is coming into conflict with the U.S.overseas militarism. For example:
"The Chinese military is seeking to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force, military officials and analysts say."
Why is China expanding militarily?
“Chinese admirals say they want warships to escort commercial vessels that are crucial to the country’s economy, from as far as the Persian Gulf to theStrait of Malacca, in Southeast Asia, and to help secure Chinese interests in the resource-rich South and East China Seas.” (April 24, 2010).
Shen Dingli, a Chinese intellectual, recently argued in favor of creating the first Chinese overseas military bases (the U.S. has 909 military facilities in foreign countries):
“With the continuous expansion of China's overseas business, the governments are more accountable for protecting the overseas interests…the guarantee of smooth trading; the prevention of overseas intervention…” (January 28, 2010 - China.org).
Typically, the U.S. military is in charge of policing most of the global shipping lanes, so that corporate goods are unhampered by pirates or hostile nations, etc. But China is no longer content with this situation, and wants protections of its own. But why?
One reason is that China has been listening to the increasingly hostile attitude of the U.S. corporate elite, who have expressed the view that China’s economic rise is inherently in conflict with or in competition with the profit-making ability of U.S. corporations. Obama’s recent provocations against China — arm sales to Taiwan, the visit to Washington by the Dali Lama, threats about Iran, currency, etc. — are all proof that China’s economic rise will not be met with friendship and cooperation.
The above-mentioned New York Times article admits “…there are few indications that China has aggressive intentions toward the United States or other countries.” Nevertheless, the whole article intends to scare and frighten. For instance:
“Of particular concern is that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our [U.S. Navy’s] freedom of action in the region,” the admiral [Willard] said.
“Japan is anxious, too…”
and
“Lee Kuan Yew, the former Singaporean leader, reflected widespread anxieties when he noted China’s naval rise and urged the United States to maintain its regional presence.”
These scare tactics are intended to steer public opinion into a hostile stance towards China, which the U.S. government views as a possible war target. This eventuality was made clear later in the article:
“…in reaction to China’s growth, the United States has recently transferred submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific so that most of its nuclear-powered attack submarines are now in the Pacific... The United States has also begun rotating three to four submarines on deployments out of Guam, reviving a practice that had ended with the cold war…”
And most alarmingly: “American vessels now frequently survey the [Chinese] submarine base at Hainan island, and that activity leads to occasional friction with Chinese ships.”
China’s economic and military rise is pushing up against territory dominated by the U.S. military, which is pushing back. Military “incidents” are increasingly likely in this situation, which can be used as a pretext for war.
Behind the military jockeying for power are economic interests. Controlling the U.S. economy are powerful corporations, who rely on the U.S. military to ensure them super profits overseas, including domination over whole regions — the Middle East, Latin America, the Pacific — that are viewed as the “exclusive economic zones” of U.S. corporations. The fact that China is now declaring itself master of its own zones is intolerable for U.S. corporations, which will stop at nothing — including war — to maintain U.S. military dominance over the globe.
![[redacted] news](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TUZS5S6HUxI/AAAAAAAABkU/U0PTtmyWyDA/s1600/redactednews%2Blogo%2B400px.png)
